# Why does the left tilt toward the Arabs? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 31, 2002, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110 "2002-03-31T22:25:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/21 "2002-04-01T13:55:56Z")
The Israeli-Palestinian problem is not so black and white as you might wish, **December**. As other posters have pointed out, sympathies for both sides do not divide evenly into Democrats=Palestine, GOP=Israel. The American Jewish community has been a bulwark of the Democratic Party since the days of FDR, so the Dems are not going to turn their back on Israel. The GOP tends to run pro-Israel because of the Christian religious right’s millennarian fantasies, as **Stoid** pointed out. The world is subtler and more complex than the simplistic good vs. evil schemata you envision. Americans on both sides of the aisle are much more sympathetic, overall, towards Israel than to the Palestinians, especially in light of the 9/11 celebration news footage. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/22 "2002-04-01T14:14:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\*::sigh:: Traditionally, due to domestic political concerns, the Democratic Party has been the stronger supporter of Israel. What are those domestic political concerns? Simple - Jews in America, at least since WWII, strongly tend to vote Democrat. \*\* Exactly. However, look at [http://www.msnbc.com/news/730905.asp?cp1=](http://www.msnbc.com/news/730905.asp?cp1=)Eric Alterman’s recent column His list of **COLUMNISTS AND COMMENTATORS WHO CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO SUPPORT ISRAEL REFLEXIVELY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION** are almost all right-wing or far right wing. So, things have changed. Today, right wing pudits support Israel more than left wing pundits do. This is particularly suprising, since, as **Sua** points out, until recently, the tilt went the other way. The question I am asking is how this switch came about. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/23 "2002-04-01T14:40:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Exactly. However, look at [http://www.msnbc.com/news/730905.asp?cp1=](http://www.msnbc.com/news/730905.asp?cp1=)Eric Alterman’s recent column His list of **COLUMNISTS AND COMMENTATORS WHO CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO SUPPORT ISRAEL REFLEXIVELY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION** are almost all right-wing or far right wing. > > So, things have changed. Today, right wing pudits support Israel more than left wing pundits do. This is particularly suprising, since, as **Sua** points out, until recently, the tilt went the other way. > > The question I am asking is how this switch came about. \*\* Why should anyone try to answer a question the validity of which has not been established? How do we, or you, know that Alterman’s list is exhaustive? How do we, or you, know that it is even correct? Have you confirmed it in other sources? Why should we waste time on a speculative argument based on unconfirmed data from some guy named Alterman? What is **his** bias? Is msnbc one of the liberal media? Or is it a true blue conservative outlet? Do you have widespread support for your contention, or just an occasional column to lean on? Go ahead and tilt at imaginary windmills if you like. It is becoming amusing to watch you thrash around. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/24 "2002-04-01T15:00:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Exactly. However, look at [http://www.msnbc.com/news/730905.asp?cp1=](http://www.msnbc.com/news/730905.asp?cp1=)Eric Alterman’s recent column His list of **COLUMNISTS AND COMMENTATORS WHO CAN BE COUNTED UPON TO SUPPORT ISRAEL REFLEXIVELY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION** are almost all right-wing or far right wing. > > So, things have changed. Today, right wing pudits support Israel more than left wing pundits do. This is particularly suprising, since, as **Sua** points out, until recently, the tilt went the other way. > > The question I am asking is how this switch came about. \*\* ::sigh again:: 1. You said in the OP that the “Right Wing Made a accurate assessment.” “Reflexive” and “unqualified” support ain’t an “assessment”, much less an accurate one; 2. The first two names listed as reflexively and unqualifiedly anti-Israel are Novak and Buchanan. I don’t know the politics of Cockburn, Hitchen and Said, but Novak and Buchanan might just qualify as “right-wing”. 3. So, perhaps the theory of your OP is, um, off, and supporters and detractors of Israel are found on both sides of the aisle? Sua ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/25 "2002-04-01T15:43:09Z")
Just out of curiosity . . . is anyone who does not support the assassination of Arafat and the immediate destruction of Palestine automatically in support of Arafat and the Palestinians? IOW, if I suggest that perhaps more might be accomplished by peaceful means than violent, am I now “pro-Arab?” Am I therefore a “leftist?” Trick question. The answer is, of course, “puh-leeze,” possibly accompanied by :rolleyes:. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/26 "2002-04-01T16:09:12Z")
Don’t post unless you know what the hell you are talking about… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > (although Israel does have a socialistic government.) Weeeeeelll, the CIA disagrees with you. They describe the Israeli economy as “a technologically advanced market economy with substantial government participation” - about the same way they describe Spain’s and France’s economies, for example. [http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html](http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html) As for the government, it is a unity coalition of Likud and Labor, with Likud the dominant partner. Likud is in favor of privatization and the reduction of government’s role in the economy. [http://www.likud.nl/govern02.html](http://www.likud.nl/govern02.html) Labor “favors a free market economy, gradual privatization and reduced government involvement in the economy.” [http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Politics/labor.html](http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Politics/labor.html) That’s all. Sua ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/27 "2002-04-01T17:12:36Z")
I’ll bite. The simplified answer to the OP is that one of the core principles of the left is sympathy and support for people who are disadvantaged politically and/or economically. The Palestinians certainly fill the bill, but that doesn’t mean American liberals should be considered ‘anti-Israel’ or ‘pro-terrorist’. Although some left-wing radicals condone or actively participate in violent ‘resistance’, most liberals would say they ‘understand’ the terrorist attacks without condoning them. There is still residual sympathy for the plight of the Jews and the extremely conservative and biased nature of Arab society ought to cause any good liberal to recoil. Liberals tend to hold out hope that Israeli territorial concession will pacify the Palestinians, but with their increasing belligerence, this hope is fading fast. Bottom line: Althought there are some tendancies of views that one can link to ‘left and right’, this is a very complex issue filled with contradictions. > [@](#): > > Extra credit: Why do an overwhelming percentage of American Jews still support the Democrats? Will this change due to their lesser support for Israel? (I’d say not.) I’d say that even though American Jews are obviously pro-Israel and (stereotypically) pro-business, they are still acutely aware of what it’s like to be an oppressed minority. They also tend to be ‘intellectuals’ which often leads to liberalism and are concentrated in that hotbed of liberalism, eht Northeast. I don’t think American Jews percieve a really damning lack of support of Israel in the Democratic party, but I wouldn’t be suprised if we see a gradually increasing migration to the Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/28 "2002-04-01T17:24:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by David Simmons \* > Why should we waste time on a speculative argument based on unconfirmed data from some guy named Alterman? What is **his** bias? > > Is msnbc one of the liberal media? Or is it a true blue conservative outlet? Alterman is liberal. MSNBC has regular columnists on both sides; Alterman is one of their lefties. > [@](#): > > **Do you have widespread support for your contention, or just an occasional column to lean on?** [Spinsanity.com](http://Spinsanity.com) had a column some time ago, which mentioned in passing that liberals tend to support Arafat than conservatives do. The difference is realy glaring if you look at a lot of different news sources. The biggest media opponent of the Palestinians is right-wing extremist Farah of WorldNet Daily. However, note that Alterman believes that Conservatives are _wrong_ to be reflexively pro-Israel. He includes himself on his list of “good-guys” – **COLUMNISTS LIKELY TO CRITICIZE BOTH ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS, BUT VIEW THEMSELVES TO BE CRITICALLY SUPPORTERS OF ISRAEL, AND ULTIMATELY, WOULD SUPPORT ISRAELI SECURITY OVER PALESTINIAN RIGHTS** Note that every pundit on this list is liberal. (BTW Thomas Friedman may have moved away from this list recently.) My point isn’t to debate whether one ought to criticize both sides or to reflexively support Israel. The point of the OP is why this issue has become a liberal/conservative dichotomy. **Sua** , I see your latest post in preview. My point was that Israel’s social programs, such as government-provided medical care, are more in line with American liberals than conservatives. So Israel’s domestic policy does not explain why Conservative pundits support Israel more strongly than liberal pundits. We need to look for another reason. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/29 "2002-04-01T18:10:09Z")
I think it’s pretty obvious that at the present moment the US’s right-leaning president is taking a hawkish stance on terrorism, while, in Israel, the right-leaning Prime Minister is taking a hawkish stance on terrorism. This makes them very likely to support one another’s hawkish activities. Liberals tend not to be hawkish and so, insofar as some liberals (like Alterman) feel allegiance to Israel, it conflicts with their tendency to dislike the hawkishness of anyone including said Israeli PM. Hence the need to criticize called for by Alterman. (In conjunction with what **Captain Amazing** said.) I think you’re making way too much of this, **december**. Although it’s not as simple as you want to make out (i.e. it doesn’t come down to left/right = “pro-Arab”/“anti-Arab”, it’s also not as mysterious as you want to make out. **sqweels** : _“Liberals tend to hold out hope that Israeli territorial concession will pacify the Palestinians, but with their increasing belligerence, this hope is fading fast.”_ It must be noted that at present Israel isn’t offering any territorial concession, and neither is Zinni proposing it. What’s being asked for by Israel is a cessation of the violence, _after_ which point, and not before, discussion of concessions may resume. **Sua** : _“The first two names [on december’s link] listed as reflexively and unqualifiedly anti-Israel are Novak and Buchanan. I don’t know the politics of Cockburn, Hitchen and Said, but Novak and Buchanan might just qualify as “right-wing”.”_ Agreed on the latter point. Cockburn and Hitchens are both _Nation_ columnists and, though they argue with each other like a cat and a dog about various issues, they are both liberal. (Hitchens, however, was very openly supportive of the war on terrorism and criticized Noam Chomsky’s position very harshly.) Hitchens is a Brit living in the States for decades. Said is a professor at Columbia University, and only moonlights as a “pundit.” He is a Palestinian though by now may be a US citizen; I don’t honestly know. He is definitely a leftist. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/30 "2002-04-01T19:48:46Z")
> [@](#): > > sqweels: “Liberals tend to hold out hope that Israeli territorial concession will pacify the Palestinians, but with their increasing belligerence, this hope is fading fast.” > > It must be noted that at present Israel isn’t offering any territorial concession, and neither is Zinni proposing it. What’s being asked for by Israel is a cessation of the violence, after which point, and not before, discussion of concessions may resume. I wasn’t referring to current postures as of this week, but the overall scope of the last couple of decades, as the OP was pretty much doing. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/31 "2002-04-01T20:33:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Frink \* > While I don’t think I’ve _ever_ agree with anything **december** has posted, calling him a “troll” is going a little too far. Can someone remind me of the last time **december** started a topic in Great Debates that _wasn’t_ a variation of “Here’s an atrocity, why do the leftist liberals support it?” (insert wringing palms and gnashing of teeth). Then, inevitably, when more level-headed posters address the errors and mistakes in **december’s** OP, he either ignores them or backpedals from his original point. Sounds like trolling to me. But then, I don’t get my topics from Fox News… ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/32 "2002-04-01T21:05:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\* > Can someone remind me of the last time **december** started a topic in Great Debates that _wasn’t_ a variation of “Here’s an atrocity, why do the leftist liberals support it?” \*\* Sure. This post. Alterman doesn’t think his own position on the Middle East is an atrocity; he thinks _my_ uncritical support of Israel is wrong. The question isn’t who’s right or wrong. It’s that liberals once supported Israel more than conservatives, but by now that has switched around. Why did that happen? How did the change come about? ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/33 "2002-04-01T21:27:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > \*\* > > I wasn’t referring to current postures as of this week, but the overall scope of the last couple of decades, as the OP was pretty much doing. \*\* Well actually my impression is that the OP was talking about recent events, but I’m not interested in quibbling with you. I hope you’ll agree, though, that this is a crucial difference. Hence, [this article](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/01/international/middleeast/01ASSE.html) from _The New York Times_, which suggests a very complicated picture indeed. (I hope your reading **december** ) Excerpt: \*"While [Bush’s public support for Sharon] was firm, it followed a lengthy National Security Council meeting that morning, where Mr. Bush’s top advisers repeated their doubts that Mr. Sharon’s strategy would either stop the suicide bombings or force Mr. Arafat back to negotiations, according to an administration official. Mr. Bush’s quandary is this: To retain a consistent and coherent stance against terrorism, he has little choice but to excoriate Mr. Arafat for failing to stop the suicide bombings… So far, Mr. Arafat has ignored those calls [to use his influence to stop the bombings]. Under the logic of the Bush doctrine, that would compel Mr. Bush to treat the Palestinian leader the way he has treated Al Qaeda and the Taliban, a point the Israelis are making daily. But in this case, as some of Mr. Bush’s advisers acknowledge, that logic has run headlong into other priorities. To build Arab support for his impending confrontation with Iraq, Mr. Bush knows he cannot afford to alienate other Arab nations, ose anti-Israel declarations have grown in vehemence and urgency, along with their demands that Mr. Bush restrain the Sharon government."\* It is a true dilemma. To pursue his own hawkish aims, Bush must be coy about Sharon’s. And here, **december** , is another excerpt describing how some conservatives don’t want to see Bush get involved in Israel situation, even though they _do_ want him to pursue his own hawkish agenda: _"On Friday The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, closely read in the White House, maintained that the Middle East “quagmire” could distract the president from his broader war on terror. The Weekly Standard, another conservative beacon, made a parallel argument this weekend, calling the last two weeks “amateur hour in American diplomacy” marked by a “patently cynical effort to curry favor with the Saudi royal family, and thus theoretically buy a few months of relative quiet in the Middle East.”_ Interesting article. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/34 "2002-04-01T22:52:26Z")
a good thread, I will read it when I get home(am at library now) My answer: I can’t answer for the media, but I am far to the left and totally pro-Israel.(God gave them the land, and it belongs to no on else.)YMMV ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/35 "2002-04-01T22:56:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \*\*\* > Well actually my impression is that the OP was talking about recent events, but I’m not interested in quibbling with you. \*\*As **sqweels** correctly guessed, the OP intended to refer to a change that I believe has taken place over the last couple of decades. I admit that the OP wasn’t clear on this point and that I didn’t supply evidence going back decades. > [@](#): > > Hence, [this article](http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/01/international/middleeast/01ASSE.html) from _The New York Times_, An analysis of a Bush policy in the NYT would make a good SAT test. One must read carefully to separate fact from opinion. The article is interesting, but much of it is actually the _columnist’s opinion_ of what Bush ought to be thinking or might be thinking, rather than _Bush’s own thoughts._ E.g., > [@](#): > > "While [Bush’s public support for Sharon] was firm, it followed a lengthy National Security Council meeting that morning, where Mr. Bush’s top advisers repeated their doubts that Mr. Sharon’s strategy would either stop the suicide bombings or force Mr. Arafat back to negotiations, according to an administration official. One can doubt the efficacy of Sharon’s policy, and still support him 100% vis a vis Arafat. I do. This position is not contradictry, as the NYT implies. > [@](#): > > Mr. Bush’s quandary is this: To retain a consistent and coherent stance against terrorism, he has little choice but to excoriate Mr. Arafat for failing to stop the suicide bombings… This may or may not be so, but it’s the _columnist’s opinion_, not Bush’s. > [@](#): > > To build Arab support for his impending confrontation with Iraq, Mr. Bush knows he cannot afford to alienate other Arab nations, ose anti-Israel declarations have grown in vehemence and urgency, along with their demands that Mr. Bush restrain the Sharon government." > > It is a true dilemma. To pursue his own hawkish aims, Bush must be coy about Sharon’s. Again, it’s the columnist’s opinion that this is a “true dilemma.” IMHO the Arab states aren’t ever going to help us overthrow Saddam, so it’s a false dilemma. > [@](#): > > Curiously, Mr. Bush also made no reference to the fact that earlier in the day the United States had voted in favor of a United Nations resolution calling for Israel to pull back its forces. It was a striking omission, raising questions about whether Mr. Bush is in any hurry for the pressure on Mr. Arafat to be lifted. Actually, the NYT omits to mention that the UN resolution was quite weak, calling on both sides to take action, and with no dates. That’s why Syria abstained. The Resolutions says: > [@](#): > > [The council] calls upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful cease-fire; calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ramallah; and calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others,… Over-emphasizing discrepancies makes it a more interesting story, but I have no doubt that Bush’s statement – that Isreal has the right to take action – reflects his beliefs and guides his policy. I have every confidence that Bush would veto a UN resolution with teeth, e.g., sending troops in to oppose the Israeli action. > [@](#): > > And here, **december** , is another excerpt describing how some conservatives don’t want to see Bush get involved in Israel situation, even though they _do_ want him to pursue his own hawkish agenda: > > \*"On Friday The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, closely read in the White House, maintained that the Middle East “quagmire” could distract the president from his broader war on terror. **Mandelstam** , again you confuse strategic advice with which side they’re on. If you read archives of [http://www.opinionjournal.com](http://www.opinionjournal.com) you’ll see that the WSJ could hardly be more in favor of Israel vs. Arafat. Alterman includes 5 WSJ columnists on his list of reflexive, unqualified supporters of Israel. I fully stand by my point that conservative pundits give greater support to Israel than liberal ones do. It’s just obvious to anyone who wastes as much time as I do reading them. The interesting question is how these positions evolved. It’s an unexplained mystery – at least it’s a mystery to me. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/36 "2002-04-01T23:24:57Z")
> [@](#): > > I fully stand by my point that conservative pundits give greater support to Israel than liberal ones do. It’s just obvious to anyone who wastes as much time as I do reading them. While that may be the case (and I agree that it is), I don’t think you’ve shown that “the left” (whomever that might be) it becoming pro-Arab. Or are you assuming that anyone who isn’t pro-Israel must be pro-Arab? ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/37 "2002-04-01T23:29:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > I fully stand by my point that conservative pundits give greater support to Israel than liberal ones do. It’s just obvious to anyone who wastes as much time as I do reading them. > > The interesting question is how these positions evolved. It’s an unexplained mystery – at least it’s a mystery to me. So then, why isn’t your thread entitled “Why does the right tilt towards Israel?” Sua ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/38 "2002-04-01T23:33:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > \*\* > > While that may be the case (and I agree that it is), I don’t think you’ve shown that “the left” (whomever that might be) it becoming pro-Arab. Or are you assuming that anyone who isn’t pro-Israel must be pro-Arab? \*\* I guess I am assuming that that someone who isn’t pro-Israel is more pro-Arab than someone who is pro-Israel. Maybe I’ve omitted a category of “a plague on both your houses.” However, it seems to me that the leftist pundits are generally both more pro-Arab and less pro-Israel than the rightists. YMMV ---
**Author:** ![flex727](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/258eb7/32.png) [@flex727](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flex727)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/39 "2002-04-01T23:34:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > \*\* > Can someone remind me of the last time **december** started a topic in Great Debates that _wasn’t_ a variation of “Here’s an atrocity, why do the leftist liberals support it?” (insert wringing palms and gnashing of teeth). Then, inevitably, when more level-headed posters address the errors and mistakes in **december’s** OP, he either ignores them or backpedals from his original point. > > Sounds like trolling to me. But then, I don’t get my topics from Fox News… \*\* Can someone remind me of the last time **december** started a topic in Great Debates that he didn’t get an uncalled for personal attack before the end of the first page? This is a forum for discussion of, frequently intractable and controversial, but thought-provoking topics. I thought the OP was an excellent subject in this regard. I had wondered the same thing and was curious as to how others might explain it. This is especially odd to me as the arabic culture is generally quite antithetical to liberal thought. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2002, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110/40 "2002-04-01T23:46:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by flex727 \* > Can someone remind me of the last time **december** started a topic in Great Debates that he didn’t get an uncalled for personal attack before the end of the first page? An **uncalled for** personal attack? I’ve never seen such a thread. > [@](#): > > This is a forum for discussion of, frequently intractable and controversial, but thought-provoking topics. I thought the OP was an excellent subject in this regard. I had wondered the same thing and was curious as to how others might explain it. This is especially odd to me as the arabic culture is generally quite antithetical to liberal thought. The problem here is that **december’s** own evidence doesn’t support his thesis. He provides a list of columnists grouped by their supposed position on Israel and Palestine. Columnists generally recognized as liberal are found in each category. Columnists generally recognized as conservative are over-represented in the “unqualified supporters of Israel” category. Add to that the fact that, at least in America, the left has been traditionally pro-Israel. Yet, in opposition to his own evidence, he asks “why is the left pro-Arab?” and tosses in “especially when they are wrong?” Had he titled this thread “why are conservative columnists predominately pro-Israel?,” which appears to be what he is actually asking, I don’t think people would have taken umbrage with him. Sua [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-does-the-left-tilt-toward-the-arabs/101110.md?page=3)